Proof-of-stake centralization is thermodynamic. The economic logic of staking rewards, slashing risk, and MEV extraction creates a winner-take-most dynamic. Large validators like Coinbase and Lido capture economies of scale in infrastructure and delegation, creating a self-reinforcing feedback loop.
security-post-mortems-hacks-and-exploits
Blog
The Future of Validator Ethics: Can We Prevent Cartels?
Economic incentives in proof-of-stake networks naturally consolidate power. Without explicit protocol-level countermeasures, validator cartels for MEV and governance are a thermodynamic certainty. This is the core security challenge of the next decade.
introduction
THE GRAVITATIONAL PULL
Introduction: The Inevitability Thesis
Economic incentives in proof-of-stake systems create a gravitational pull toward validator centralization, making cartels a structural inevitability.
Cartels are a rational equilibrium. The dominant strategy for large validators is to form soft cartels through shared infrastructure like Blockdaemon or collaborative MEV-boost relays. This coordination maximizes profit while staying below the overt collusion threshold that triggers community backlash.
The 'Decentralization Theater' is failing. Current solutions like DVT (Distributed Validator Technology) from Obol and SSV Network only mitigate single-point failures. They do not solve the economic concentration of stake or the social coordination of the entities controlling it.
Evidence: Lido commands over 32% of Ethereum's stake, a super-majority threshold. The top five entities control over 60% of the network's validation power, demonstrating the rapid consolidation predicted by this model.
key-trends
THE INCENTIVE TRAP
The Three Forces Driving Cartelization
The economic and technical design of modern proof-of-stake chains creates powerful, self-reinforcing pressures toward centralization.
01
The MEV-Cartel Feedback Loop
Maximal Extractable Value creates a wealth gap that centralizes stake. Validators with the best MEV strategies earn more, buy more stake, and dominate block building, creating a self-perpetuating oligopoly.
- Top 3 Ethereum validators control ~44% of MEV-boost relays.
- Jito, bloXroute act as centralized MEV supply chains.
- Cartelization reduces censorship resistance and network resilience.
44%
MEV Relay Control
Jito/bloXroute
Key Entities
02
The Liquid Staking Monoculture
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) abstract stake, concentrating voting power in a few protocols. Users delegate for convenience, creating a "too big to fail" governance layer controlled by entities like Lido and Coinbase.
- Lido commands ~30% of all staked ETH.
- Creates a single point of failure for consensus and governance.
- Undermines the 1 ETH = 1 vote ideal of proof-of-stake.
30%
Lido's Stake Share
1 Protocol
Governance Risk
03
Infrastructure & Geographic Centralization
Validator performance depends on low-latency, high-uptime infrastructure, favoring centralized cloud providers and specific regions. This creates systemic risk and regulatory attack surfaces.
- ~60% of nodes run on AWS, Google Cloud, Hetzner.
- Geographic clustering in US/EU exposes chains to jurisdictional takedowns.
- Creates a performance cartel where only well-capitalized entities can compete.
60%
Cloud Provider Reliance
AWS/GCP
Key Entities
VALIDATOR GOVERNANCE MODELS
The Cartelization Scorecard: On-Chain Evidence
A quantitative comparison of anti-cartel mechanisms across leading Ethereum consensus clients and L2 sequencers.
| Metric / Mechanism | Ethereum (In-Activity Leak) | EigenLayer (Restaking) | Lido (Distributed Validator Tech) | Arbitrum (Sequencer Governance) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Maximum Cartel Size (Gini Coefficient Target) |
| Not enforced (Relies on AVS slashing) | <0.32 for node operator set | N/A (Single sequencer, multi-role) |
Slashing for Cartel Behavior | Inactivity leak only (Indirect) | ✅ (AVS-defined slashing for collusion) | ❌ (No slashing for governance cartels) | ❌ (Governance fork is ultimate slashing) |
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) Enforcement | ✅ (via MEV-Boost / enshrined PBS roadmap) | ❌ (Builder role not defined for AVSs) | ✅ (All node operators use MEV-Boost) | N/A |
Time to Decentralize Cartel (Liveness Failure) | ~36 days (Inactivity leak period) | Varies by AVS (Weeks to Months) | Governance-dependent (Months) | < 1 day (If DAO executes emergency upgrade) |
On-Chain Cartel Detection Metric | Validator churn rate & attestation performance | Operator correlation scores on EigenDA | Node operator client diversity & geographic distribution | Sequencer liveness & censorship metrics |
Cost to Attack 33% of Network (Annualized) | $34B (ETH stake required) | <$1B (Restaked ETH + AVS bribes) | $11B (stETH governance attack) | N/A (Permissioned sequencer) |
Primary Anti-Collusion Layer | Cryptoeconomic (Stake-at-Risk) | Cryptoeconomic + Social (EigenLayer Council) | Technical (DVT) + Social (DAO) | Political (DAO) + Legal (Off-chain agreements) |
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE
The Slippery Slope: From MEV Clubs to Governance Capture
The economic logic of MEV extraction inevitably consolidates validator power, creating a direct path to controlling on-chain governance.
MEV extraction is a gateway drug to validator centralization. The capital requirements for sophisticated MEV strategies create professional validator cartels like Lido's dominant staking pool. These entities optimize for profit, not network health.
Cartelized validators control transaction ordering, which is de facto governance. A coalition controlling 33% of stake can censor transactions or extract maximal value before users see their trades on Uniswap or Curve.
Governance tokens become the next extractable asset. A validator cartel can front-run or manipulate votes for proposals that increase their MEV revenue, turning DAOs like Arbitrum or Optimism into profit centers for the cartel.
Evidence: Lido commands over 32% of Ethereum staking. This creates a credible single-point-of-failure risk where a cartel's internal agreement, not Nakamoto Consensus, dictates chain outcomes.
protocol-spotlight
BEYOND SOCIAL CONSENSUS
Protocols in the Trenches: The Anti-Cartel Arsenal
Technical mechanisms are emerging to structurally disincentivize validator collusion, moving the fight from governance forums to protocol design.
01
EigenLayer's Enshrined Slashing
Moves slashing logic from subjective social consensus to objective, cryptographically-verifiable faults. AVSs define clear, automatable slashing conditions for cartel-like behavior (e.g., censorship).\n- Eliminates governance lag in punishing cartels.\n- Creates provable fault for MEV theft or transaction exclusion.
$15B+
TVL at Risk
0-Day
Slashing Delay
02
Obol's Distributed Validator Technology (DVT)
Fragments a single validator key across multiple nodes, requiring a threshold to sign. A cartel must now corrupt a majority of a single validator's operators, not just a majority of all validators.\n- Raises collusion cost from attacking the network to attacking specific clusters.\n- Inherently diversifies client and infrastructure risk.
4+
Operators per Node
>99.9%
Uptime Target
03
The MEV-Boost Relay Cartel Problem
The dominant relay market is controlled by ~5 entities, creating a central point for censorship and value extraction. This is a cartel in plain sight.\n- ~90% of blocks are built by a handful of relays.\n- Solution path: Enshrined PBS, SUAVE, or permissionless relay markets.
~90%
Block Share
<5
Dominant Relays
04
SSV Network's Key Distribution
Implements a practical DVT network with a decentralized operator set and a fault-proof consensus layer. Makes validator cartel formation a Byzantine agreement problem within each cluster.\n- No single point of failure for a validator.\n- Penalizes inactive/lazy operators automatically, maintaining performance.
13+
Node Operators
4-of-7
Signature Threshold
05
Cosmos' Interchain Security as a Test
Allows a provider chain (e.g., Cosmos Hub) to secure consumer chains with its validator set. This tests economic centralization: will the hub's validators act as a rent-seeking cartel for new chains?\n- Real-world lab for validator set economics.\n- Market pressure from rollup-as-a-service competitors (e.g., EigenLayer, AltLayer) keeps fees in check.
175+
Validators
Consumer Chains
Security Clients
06
The Ultimate Deterrent: Credibly Neutral Forks
The nuclear option. A client team (e.g., Lighthouse, Teku) can release a client that ignores blocks from identified cartel validators, triggering a user-activated soft fork (UASF).\n- Makes cartelization a financial suicide pact.\n- Relies on widespread client diversity and social coordination as a last resort.
>66%
Stake to Isolate
Final Option
UASF Threat
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Counterpoint: Isn't This Just Efficient Market Theory?
Efficient market theory fails in crypto because the cost of collusion is lower than the cost of honest competition.
The theory assumes rational, independent actors, but blockchain validators are rational, coordinated actors. The cost of forming a cartel is negligible compared to the potential profit from MEV extraction or transaction censorship, creating a structural incentive for collusion that market forces do not correct.
Proof-of-Stake exacerbates this dynamic by concentrating capital and voting power. Unlike traditional finance, where collusion is illegal and detectable, on-chain cartels like the Lido/Coinbase alliance are transparent and currently permissible, creating a permissioned cartel within a permissionless system.
The solution is protocol-level disincentives, not market hopes. Mechanisms like in-protocol slashing for liveness failures (as proposed by EigenLayer) or proposer-builder separation (PBS) architectures actively raise the cost of coordinated malfeasance, forcing a re-evaluation of the cartel's risk-reward calculus.
Evidence: The Lido DAO controls ~33% of Ethereum stake, a concentration that market competition has not dispersed. This demonstrates that without explicit, punitive protocol rules, efficient market theory is a poor predictor of validator behavior.
takeaways
VALIDATOR CARTEL RISK
TL;DR for CTOs and Architects
The core security assumption of Proof-of-Stake is under threat from stake concentration and off-chain collusion. Here's the technical frontier for defense.
01
The Problem: Lido's 32% Ethereum Stake
A single liquid staking protocol controlling >30% of network stake creates systemic risk and de facto governance control. This is the canonical cartel threat.
- Single point of failure for censorship and chain finality.
- Vote power centralization in DAO governance (e.g., Aave, Uniswap).
- Economic gravity pulls more stake in, creating a winner-take-most market.
32%
ETH Stake
1
DAO Gov
02
The Solution: Distributed Validator Technology (DVT)
Splits a single validator's duties across multiple, independent nodes run by Obol Network and SSV Network. This hardens security and democratizes participation.
- Fault tolerance: Validator stays online if 1 of 4 nodes fails.
- Key distribution: No single operator holds the full signing key, mitigating slashing risk.
- Enables pooled staking without creating a centralized entity.
4
Node Quorum
-99%
Downtime Risk
03
The Problem: MEV Cartels & Off-Chain Collusion
Validators forming proposer-builder separation (PBS) cartels can extract maximum value, censor transactions, and distort chain economics. This happens in dark pools and private channels.
- Flashbots SUAVE aims to democratize MEV but could itself become a cartel.
- Cross-chain MEV via LayerZero and Across creates larger attack surfaces.
- Opaque revenue sharing undermines chain transparency.
$500M+
Annual MEV
Opaque
Revenue Flow
04
The Solution: Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (ePBS)
Bakes PBS directly into the Ethereum protocol, formally separating block building from proposing. This is a first-principles fix to mitigate cartel formation.
- Credible neutrality: Removes trust from out-of-protocol relays like Flashbots.
- Forces competition: Builders must publicly bid for block space via the protocol.
- Long-term fix versus interim solutions like MEV-Boost.
Protocol
Level Fix
0
Trusted Relays
05
The Problem: Governance Attacks via Staked Tokens
Liquid staking tokens (e.g., stETH, cbETH) are used as collateral across DeFi (Aave, Maker). A cartel controlling the staking derivative can attack the underlying DeFi governance.
- Double-voting power: Stake in consensus and governance with the same capital.
- Creates systemic linkages where a failure in staking risks the entire DeFi stack.
- Undermines L1 slashing as a deterrent, as losses are socialized.
>$20B
DeFi TVL Linked
2x
Voting Power
06
The Solution: Programmable Staking & Slashing Insurance
Smart contract layers like EigenLayer and StakeWise V3 introduce programmable slashing conditions and attributable security. This allows for detection and penalization of cartel behavior.
- Modular slashing: Define and enforce new anti-collusion rules.
- Insurance pools funded by stakers to cover slashing events, creating a market for trust.
- Transparent metrics for validator performance and decentralization.
Programmable
Slashing
Attributable
Security
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall